ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 ANS Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Latest Magazine Issues
Feb 2026
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
February 2026
Nuclear Technology
January 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
LLNL offers tools to model the economics of inertial fusion power plants
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has designed a model to help assess the economic impact of future fusion power plant operations—specifically, the operation of inertial fusion energy (IFE) power plants. Further, it has made its Generalized Economics Model (GEM) for Fusion Technology—an Excel spreadsheet—available for download.
F.-X. Ouf, M. De Mendonca Andrade, H. Feuchter, S. Duval, C. Volkringer, T. Loiseau, F. Salm, P. Ainé, L. Cantrel, A. Gil-Martin, F. Hurel, C. Lavalette, P. March, P. Nerisson, J. Nos, L. Bouilloux
Nuclear Technology | Volume 209 | Number 2 | February 2023 | Pages 169-192
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2022.2129274
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Experimental results are reported on the airborne release, under fire conditions, of hazardous materials dissolved in a mixture of organic solvents [tributylphosphate (TBP) and hydrogenated tetrapropylene (HTP)] representative of the nuclear fuel recycling process. Cerium and ruthenium have been considered, respectively, as stable and volatile fission products that eventually could be released as airborne particles during thermal degradation of contaminated and inflammable liquids. Airborne release fractions (ARFs) and their experimental uncertainties have been determined. Considering fire involving contaminated organic solvents, higher ARFs are reported for ruthenium Ru(+III) (0.99 ± 1.20%) in comparison with cerium [0.22 ± 0.31% and 0.20 ± 0.28% for Ce(+III) and Ce(+IV), respectively]. This discrepancy is partially due to the volatility of ruthenium formed under these conditions. Considering configurations involving an aqueous nitric acid phase placed below contaminated solvents, boiling of this phase enhances the release of contaminant materials: 1.78 ± 1.06% and 1.01 ± 1.31% for Ce(+III) and Ce(+IV), respectively, and 12.41 ± 29.45% for Ru(+III). Analysis of the size distribution, morphology, and chemical composition of the released particles and droplets emitted during HTP/TBP bubble collapse are reported, highlighting the contribution of bubble bursting at the solvent surface to airborne release.